Telangana High Court
Jetty Umeshwar Rao vs Directorate General Of Defence Estates on 29 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.1 of 2025
ORDER (Oral): (Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice)
Sri Ch. Venu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri
K.R.Koteswera Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
Cantonment, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. Heard on admission.
3. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has claimed
for the following relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is
therefore prayed, that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandums
(i) directing Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to restore the Picket
Public Garden situated in GLR.Survey No.487 having
extent of 13.6900 Ac to its original place as per GLR
Extract by removing the illegal construction works of
erection of politicians memorial statue,
(ii) to initiate contempt proceedings against respondent
Nos.1 to 4 for violation of the orders of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8519/2006
in Union of India vs. State of Gujarat & others,
2
(iii) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
respondent Nos.1 to 4 for misuse of Cantonment Public
Funds andpass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice.”
4. The petitioner claiming himself to be a social worker and
public spirited person has filed the present Public Interest
Litigation. To support his contention that he is a social worker,
reliance is placed on the certificate dated 25.01.2004 and award of
appreciation dated 26.01.2007 issued by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh in relation to blood donation camps.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the erection
of statue of political leader in the Picket Public Garden is against
the interest of public. He submits that Article 51-A (g) of the
Constitution provides as under:
“Article 51A. Fundamental Duties:
(a) to (f)…
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures;”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as
per the aforesaid Fundamental Duty, the petitioner has filed this
petition to protect the environment. Article 48A is referred to
3
bolster the submission that it is obligatory on the part of the
Government to protect and improve the environment, whereas by
erection of statue they are destroying the greenery and
environment.
7. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is based on Sections 62 and 64 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. It
is submitted that Section 62 deals with Duties of the Board,
whereas Section 64 deals with Discretionary functions of the
Board. A conjoint reading of the said Sections makes it clear that
there exists no enabling provision for erection of statues in the
Public Gardens. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted
about the condition of the Garden by placing reliance on the
newspaper article which was published on 03.08.2006 (Annexure
P-8). Thus, the petitioner/social worker is entitled to raise present
grievance.
8. Last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
based on the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India v. State of Gujarat 1. By placing heavy reliance on the
record of proceedings/interim order dated 18.01.2013 in Union of
India (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that until
1
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8519/2006.
4
further orders, the Supreme Court directed that status quo which
is obtaining as on that date was to be maintained with regard to
the statues. Reference is also made to the final judgment of the
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case to submit that in view of the
final judgment, particularly paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the said
judgment, all the High Courts are under obligation to consider
this aspect and the interim protection granted by the Supreme
Court was continued. In the event of any breach, it was open for
the High Courts to exercise its jurisdiction. In the light of this
argument, the action of the respondents of erection of statue in
the Picket Public Garden is against the public interest and the
said action may be held as illegal.
9. Sounding a contra note, Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India, submits that present Public
Interest Litigation does not disclose as to what are the social
activities carried on by the petitioner. The certificate and award of
appreciation on which reliance is placed are relating to blood
donation camps and has nothing to do with environment. The
recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Vankadavath Hanma Nayak v. The State of Telangana 2, was
referred to submit that the petitioner is not a social worker or a
2
W.P.(PIL) No.29108 of 2023, decided on 19.08.2023.
5
public spirited person. Merely doing yoga in the Picket Public
Garden does not make him a social worker. Heavy reliance is
placed on paragraph No.24 of the judgment in the case of
Vankadavath Hanma Nayak (supra).
10. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India by producing
photographs of the Garden where the statue is erected submits
that it is a statue of Former Prime Minister of India and Bharat
Ratna, whose centenary functions are going on in the entire year,
as such, the statue is erected and its inauguration is due. The
same is erected at the end of the large green garden. It is not
creating any hindrance to the people, who are doing yoga or
walking. Thus, no element of Public Interest Litigation is there in
this petition.
11. It is further contended that the order of the Supreme Court
in Union of India (supra) relates to illegal constructions of
religious nature on the roads, parks, public places, etc,. Thus, the
said order cannot be made applicable in the present case.
12. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated
above.
6
13. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival
contentions and perused the records.
Findings:-
14. This Court in the case of Vankadavath Hanma Nayak
(supra) at paragraph No.24 opined as under:
“24. From perusal of paragraph Nos.2 and 3, referred to
supra, it is clear that petitioner has only stated that he is
resident of the village and is a social worker and working for
upliftment of downtrodden and is protecting innocent people
and the Government lands from land grabbers. However, no
such details of activities have neither been averred nor any
documents have been filed in support of such an averment.”
15. In the light of above findings, if the antecedents of the
petitioner are examined, it will be clear like noonday that only
work highlighted by him is relating to blood donation. Thus, in
the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of
Vankadavath Hanma Nayak (supra), it cannot be said that the
petitioner is public spirited person for the purpose of raising the
present grievance.
16. So far, Sections 62 and 64 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 are
concerned, it prescribes different functions and duties of the
Board. The petitioner could not point out any provision of the
Cantonments Act, which has been breached by erection of statue.
Thus, the Cantonments Act is of no assistance to the petitioner.
7
17. The photographs relied upon by the learned Additional
Solicitor General of India makes it crystal clear that in huge green
garden a statue is erected at end and pathway or greenery or
walking area are not at all disturbed. Thus, on merits, we find no
justification to interfere.
18. So far, the order of the Supreme Court is concerned, a
minute reading of interim order dated 18.01.2013 shows that the
ad interim protection was confined to and was in relation to
triangle island of Kanyakumari, where a statue was sought to be
erected, the last line of this interim order shows that the SLP was
directed to be listed after four weeks. Thereafter, final judgment
dated 31.01.2018 was passed. A minute reading of final judgment
shows that the directions are mainly issued to prevent
unauthorized construction of Temples, Churches, Mosques or
Gurudwaras on streets, pathways, gardens and other public
places etc. The ad interim protection dated 18.01.2013 on which
heavy reliance is placed is not order in rem and was in relation to
a particular statue situated in a particular area. Even assuming
that the said order is continued, the same is confined to that area
only. In the final judgment, there is no specific direction for
erection of statues in garden.
8
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to
entertain the present Public Interest Litigation. The petition sans
substance and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 29.01.2025
GVR